Two days ago, Razor Magazine announced that it would cease publication. Of course readers of the New York Post's Keith Kelly already knew this. Kelly had the story last week, and in it he referred to Razor Magazine CEO Richard Botto as a one-time internet porn king, writing, "In 2000, his operation ran afoul of the Federal Trade Commission, which accused him of running an illegal credit card scheme that billed consumer's credit cards for porn material they claimed they never ordered." This did not sit well with Botto. In his statement Wednesday announcing the folding of Razor, Botto wrote, "There have been many inaccuracies in the reporting of the events leading to this point as well as in the reporting of personal information regarding myself.  Much of what has been reported thus far is simply incorrect." Botto speaks with Media Life about the end of Razor, the various ills of the men's magazine category, and his feelings about Kelly and his coverage of Razor and its demise.


Why is Razor stopping publication?

   Well, the main reason is the people that were involved financially took a step back and looked at the climate of the men’s category. 
   From the start we had to play from behind as an independent magazine. There’s the inevitable battle you face competing with the likes of a Condé Nast or Hearst, where there are corporate buys that cross over many titles. 
   But there’s also a mindset in the media-buying community that is so entrenched, and it's almost counterproductive to what their ultimate goal is, which is to reach the most concentrated target audience they can. 
  Also with print advertising down, and internet advertising on the rise, the obstacles were just too many.
   
   
In the statement, you said that Razor will continue as a brand?
   
   For the Razor brand in general, print was one extension, online was another. There were plans to expand the brand, and we'll continue to expand the Razor brand. For print media, let's face it, there are a million struggles ahead. The ad climate hasn’t returned since 9/11. 
   While there have been signs of a recovery, being on the front line I can tell you that budgets are still being cut, budgets are still being realigned. 
   In addition, with the scrutiny from the Audit Bureau of Circulations [over inflated circulation claims], at some point I think people who are placing advertising with certain magazines will realize if the title is losing 10 percent of its newsstand year after year, yet is still running around with the same rate base, there’s a problem.
   
   
Will the online side of Razor still be around?
   
   We're going to keep the online portion running. The Razor brand will continue to be about reaching upscale twenty- and thirty-somethings who’re beyond the laddie years but not quite yet to the Esquire years. Everything we do with the brand will be a reflection of that.
   
   
What were the reporting inaccuracies you mentioned in your statement on Wednesday?

   Well, the problem is, and it’s a one we’ve faced since the beginning--it’s a battle in every aspect-- we had to battle for respect, and not only in the business community but with the media itself as well. We live in a world right now of report-first-ask-questions-second journalism. 
   Unfortunately, with bloggers and the influence they have, respectable newspapers and magazines who print once a day are now having their ethics called into question. 
  That was certainly the case with Razor and some reports that came out in the last week. No formal announcement had been made, many of these reporters, including Keith Kelly at the Post, had my cell number and easily could have contacted me with questions. 
   These are people who, over the last five years, haven’t given us respect. Any press releases we put out there were more or less ignored by the mainstream media. Once we said we may stop printing, the mainstream media latched onto it. 
   I found Kelly’s piece to be one step beyond a National Enquirer article. There were no quotes. I wasn’t contacted. He could have contacted me directly. 
   He basically got his information from a web site that regurgitates news and adds what they think are snappy one-liners to it. The point is, if journalists at the New York Post are getting their stories from blogs, [the Post] should get to the bloggers who sit in their pajamas all day and hire them for a third of the price.
   One thing that was reported was that our circulation had dwindled over the years, or plummeted. The fact of the matter remains that we publicly announced a rate-base cut well over a year ago. One reason we did it is similar to why a magazine like Details hasn’t raised theirs in a couple years. There are questionable tactics out there regarding how people pad their circulation. 
   People who are sitting there with budgets are becoming more and more keen to them. We wanted to say, this is the audience of Razor magazine. Unlike Maxim’s 2.5 million circulation, where one reader is 17 and the next is 45, our point was to sit in every meeting and say this is exactly who the 200,000 people are, and this is exactly who you’re going to reach with your advertising. Millions of magazines have done similar things over the years. 
   But we announced our rate base cut, and that’s something a guy like Kelly didn’t report. Instead of doing some research into that, he reported our circulation was plummeting. Razor was one of just three men’s titles to show double-digit growth in single copy sales, and we’re very proud of that.
   
   
What do you attribute that double digit growth to?
   
   First of all we listened to what readers wanted. We felt we didn’t have that when I took over in July ‘04. 
   Again, this was a fight for respectability. I tried to combat it with top-drawer writers like Mike Lupica, Jerry Capeci, and on and on, experts in the field they were writing about, and that made a big difference. There was a reception to that. 
   I think what’s blatantly obvious is that Maxim loses circulation consistently, and I think there’s been a burnout on those kind of titles. It’s a little cookie-cutter. I think [readers are] looking for something else. In the five years I’ve been doing this, I don’t know one person who has a subscription to GQ, so I don’t think there’s a connect there. 
   I think people connected with this magazine. I think the public was a little bit ahead of the advertising world.
   
   
What chance would you give Razor of publishing again?
   
   I think there’s going to be a major shakeout in this industry. A few more corporate-headed titles are going to fall. The apocalypse for the industry will be the circulation issue and the ABC, and I think it’s needed. I’ve sat in on a million meetings, and I’ve heard the contradiction in terms and hypocrisy that exists in the media-buying world and the publishing world. 
   It’s a house of cards right now. I don’t think there’s a sense of trust between those who actually place advertising and the brands, especially in the men’s category. All of these magazines try to skew younger. I don’t think there’s trust going on with circulation numbers. What is the magazine truly delivering? Can we trust the numbers they’re putting in front of us? I think there will be more titles that fall. 
   Regardless of what you say, the internet is still in its infancy as a media tool. Once the shakeout happens, and there’s a change in the climate. Then, yeah, I could see Razor coming back in some capacity.
  I definitely think there’s a place in the marketplace for Razor. I think it was unique. The problem is there isn’t an open mind to independent publishers to producing general-interest books. 
   I think there are media buyers who do more harm than good by having blind loyalty. I can’t tell you how many meetings I sat in in five years where I heard the lead guy on a campaign say, ‘I hate magazine X, but I have to advertise with them because my competition is there. It’s probably not best for the brand, but I have to be there.’ It’s kind of ludicrous when you think about it.
   
   
What made Razor unique?
   
   I think that we never played to the lowest common denominator. We were extremely topical for a monthly. Again, by bringing in writers that specialized in the subjects we’re covering, we brought almost an insider’s perspective to every topic we covered. 
  I also think we found a nice balance between entertaining and informing, which is what a magazine should be. I think we found a nice balance there, and certainly the feedback was that our readers appreciated that. 
   We also weren’t a magazine you could get through in two minutes. You can talk about entry points, but at the end of the day it’s the experience a person has sitting with a magazine that brings them back for more, which could be why the laddies are suffering. The mentality’s got a little dust on it right now.
   
   
In your own words, what kind of business did you do on the internet?
   
   To me, [what Kelly wrote] was personal and almost slanderous in a way. At this point, with him trying to drag me in the mud, the bottom line is this: The company we ran dealt with everything internet-related, from design to search engine optimization to creating proprietary software to creating banking and billing relationships for companies, which wasn’t easy in the early days of the internet, and we did this for all sorts of internet sites, non-adult and adult. 
   
   
Some of the reports seem to make you out as some sort of pornographer.
   
   That’s the point. The adult stuff, you know, we didn’t shoot anything, we didn’t produce anything, we were not directors, producers or anything else to do with pornography. The accusations are akin to saying because DirecTV offers adult channels, the people who make that decision are porn peddlers. 
   As far as the FTC part of this, our case was dismissed. It was one of the quickest dismissals in the FTC’s history, and people can look that up. We were not found guilty of one cent of fraud, none whatsoever, and that’s public knowledge.
 On top of it, the $250,000 that was placed in escrow was a precautionary measure on [the FTC’s] behalf as they do in any case, and was returned to us in full two years later because there was no fraud. 
   And that’s the part Kelly didn’t report. And that’s the end of the story. The problem with the media and a guy like Kelly is it’s sensationalism journalism. 
   It’s easy to point and say, ‘He made his money off porn.’ They’re not going to report about our software. If you’ve ever bought anything online, chances are you’ve crossed software we came up with at one time. But that’s just not sexy enough. They won’t talk about the hundreds of non-adult sites that we were involved with because that’s just not sexy, it doesn’t sell newspapers.
   [Botto added later: I always had a cordial relationship with Kelly. I even sent him a bottle of wine when his son was born. I never even received a thank you.]
   
   
So what’s next for you?
   
   Well, I’ve got a few things to explore. First I’m going to rest a little bit, check out my beloved New York Jets. Basically take some time, regroup. I have some ideas to explore, and we’ll try to get them going.
   
   
Can you say what those ideas are?
   
   I have some writing projects I’m continuing to pursue, things I didn’t have time to explore when I was running and editing this magazine. Who knows, maybe a book about the whole hypocrisy of the magazine industry?

Media Life caught up with the Post's Kelly this morning for his response to Botto's claims.

   "I got an angry email letter from him yesterday," recalls Kelly. "The reality is I did try to call around looking for him. I do not have his cell phone. I may have had it at one time but not anymore. We did leave messages in the New York office and the Arizona office."
  And besides, says Kelly, the Post report was accurate. " He’s not disputing the fact that he’s shutting down, he IS shutting down."
   Kelly says he may have received a bottle of wine when his son was born but he doesn't recall it. In any case, he says that when he does receive gifts he tosses the card because he doesn't want his news judgment and objectivity swayed. He says, " If I was remiss, I extend my humble apologies, although it’s always possible that someone in the mailroom held onto it and drank it before it got here."